Different Schools of Thought

[Roothlus]

Yo, what's up. THis is my first 2+2 post but a conversation held in the IRC #twoplustwo room inspired me to post on this board. I'm Oman on the IRC and yesterday I got into a dispute that you can be a great tournament player without possessing the skills needed to be a great no limit ring game player. TheDiablo, who I hear is highly respected in that room and on here, was telling me that I was flat wrong. Now, I have no room to question any of his thoughts and opinions on here considering I've never posted on ehre and am just recently making my way up through the poker hierarchy. After a while of contemplating why TheDiablo was so against what I was saying, I just gave in decided that he was right and I was wrong. He stated that in order to be a good no limit tourney player you have to be very good at no limit ring because there are many more tough spots you get put in. I agree with this, but that is only one aspect of each game.
But later on in the evening when I was with a stripper enjoying the spoils of my recent Super Tuesday victory I couldn't stop thinking about that little conversation on IRC. I decided that he does have a good point but I do not think he is entirely correct.
Here's an example of why I think Diablo is partially right but I also have some clout in this dispute. This kid that I know is a 16 year old country-renowned Chess champion. He is one of the youngest in the world to ever have achieved grandmaster status. However, he is one of the worst poker players I have ever seen. What I have come to realize is every game sparks a different part of the mind and for whatever reason poker tournies seem to aid me the best out of any game I have ever played. Maybe because I am ADD, but that's besides the point. Why is it that a kid can be absolutely amazing at one game and absolutely terrible at another? Because they use different parts of the brain. Although NL Ring and NL Tournies are still the same game they are completely different types. And for that reason why is it a necessity for a good nl tourney player to have derived from nl ring? I'm sure it helps but it is not needed. I believe that each and every person has different strong points and weaknesses so to simply state that I think it's being a little ignorant. For me, there is a certain excitement, a competitive spirit within tournaments that just gets my adrenaline pumping and, yes, I have no doubt that it affects my play for the better. In a nl ring game, there is no adrenaline flowing, no thrill of the victory. I started playing poker because I needed money and realized that in today's world money is a necessity to live life well. But the underlying reason why I was drawn to it was I play poker for the thrill of victory and that competitive spirit. Tournies are the only type of poker that instills those thing in me. On that note, I think this a long enough first post and I should expect a bit of heat but ain't nuttin wrong wit a nigga expressin an opinion /images/graemlins/wink.gif. Peace.

[Popinjay]

Chess and Poker are very different. NL ring and NL tournaments are different but verrry similar. I agree with Diablo

[binions]

They require different skills, but to say one player can't master each skill set is silly.

[waffle]

His point is this: If you consider yourself an expert NL HE Tourney player, yet, you can't beat NL HE Cash games, you're probably not an expert NL HE Tourney player. It still stands.

Note that this refers to ability, not desire. Also note that this argument: "I haven't beaten NL HE cash games, but that's only because I don't want to" does not give you a lot of credibility, as money and variance should provide enough incentive for an expert tourney player to 'branch out' into cash games.

[TomCollins]

I highly doubt that Diablo would state that tournaments aren't easier than cash games.

At least most online tournaments where the blinds rise so fast, "advanced" strategy becomes less of a factor when you have an all-in pushfest type tournament.

[OrangeKing]

[ QUOTE ]
This kid that I know is a 16 year old country-renowned Chess champion. He is one of the youngest in the world to ever have achieved grandmaster status. However, he is one of the worst poker players I have ever seen.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Hikaru (if you're in the US, the only person you could be talking about...even though he recently turned 17) is really that bad at poker, it doesn't surprise me too much - he has probably spent just a tad more time on his chess game. Besides, I think most chess players suck at poker, based on impressions I got at the last large tournament I played in. Probably a smaller percentage of suckiness than the general population, but still bad. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Nobody is really all that good in either of these games - or any other complex game - until they study and learn.

[tek]

In tourneys, the blinds rise and soon the antes kick in. You need to make moves before you are blinded and anted out.
Also, one wrong move and you lose all your chips and are out.

In ring games, the blinds never go up. There is no ante. You can fold as many hands as you want or play as many as you want. And you can rebuy over and over.

[Rosencrantz1]

Where I stopped reading your post:

[ QUOTE ]

But later on in the evening when I was with a stripper enjoying the spoils of my recent Super Tuesday victory I couldn't stop thinking about that little conversation on IRC.

[/ QUOTE ]

[CurryLover]

I guess that all top tourney players possess the skills necessary to become good ring game players as well. However, that does not mean that they necessarily are good ring game players - even though they have the necessary skills to become good at ring games with hard work.

The weekly tourney I regularly play in is often frequented by one of the best tournament players on the European circuit. He wins it, or at least makes the money, a ridiculously large percentage of times. I heard from others that he is a big fish in the cash games but I didn't quite believe that he could be since he was so good in the tourneys. However, the first time I played in a cash game with him I realised that they were right - he was a big, big, rich fish. He played very badly indeed.

On the other hand, I think I'm a half decent live cash game player - but I'm not very good in the tourneys.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
His point is this: If you consider yourself an expert NL HE Tourney player, yet, you can't beat NL HE Cash games, you're probably not an expert NL HE Tourney player. It still stands.

[/ QUOTE ]
What? Who said anything about an expert tourney player not being able to beat a ring game? I don't see that. All I see is that they may not be "great" at ring games. I think that is obviously true. Just because you aren't a great ring game player doesn't mean you can't make any money at it.

[SpeakEasy]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never posted on ehre and am just recently making my way up through the poker hierarchy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker "hierarchy" is myth. You may be moving up in money levels, but we're all playing the same game.

[Nicmavsfan28]

"Just because you aren't a great ring game player doesn't mean you can't make any money at it."

You make make money on any given night but you will NOT make money in the long run.

[Nicmavsfan28]

You must be adaptable if you hope to do anything seriously in this game, evidently, just like evolution. Being good at any game depends largely on what you 'think' you are good in. Confidence breeds success.

A note: Judging by your post you are in this game for the adrenaline rush. Addictive personalities and gambling dont mix. So, strangely enough, having said that I feel like you should be adaptable, I think YOU specifically maybe should stay away from ring games, at least until you acquire the taste for playing in an environment you aren't familiar with yet. If you do not enjoy what you are doing in all things you will not do well, it is as simple as that. /images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

And to answer your question fully. If you arent good at Hold Em in any environment, you suck at it in general. No offense. There are NO differences in the rules. Sure in betting structure, and in the fact that mistakes are usually the end of your day at tourneys (unless you deliver a bad beat or two). But poker is poker is poker. Do you follow? You should play with the same general approach to playing always with Sklansky's Fundamental Theorum of Poker in mind and force your opponents to make a bad decision.